Brown has now joined the boy Ed Miliband in riduling Climate sceptics as ‘Flat-earthers’ and similar vulgar abuse. They both claim that the sceptics don’t understand the science despite the fact that the sceptic movement is now run by sceptical scientists. And - it must be asked - what are the scientific qualifications of Brown and Miliband [or Cameron or Clegg) ?
But apart from the scientists many more are now perfectly certain that the statistics - all emanating from Britain, I’m sorry to say - have been fiddled, and manipulated to fit the theory. The evidence has been there ever since Gore’s ridiculous lying graph, and the leaked e-mails merely confirm this.
On top of this the computer programmes are flawed as well being doctored to produce the required forecasts to fit the theory.
Long ago when computers started, IBM warned the world that the results from the machines was only as good as the information fed into them - “GIGO” they called it ‘Guff IN, Guff OUT’
Today’s Telegraph Leader shown here is a masterpiece of having it all ways and saying nothing. I forward it in contempt! (and have expended my wrath on it! )
Christina
================================
REUTERS 3.12.09
"Climate saboteurs" threaten Copenhagen - Miliband
By Michael Szabo
LONDON (Reuters) - Climate sceptics, people who doubt the science on global warming, must not be allowed to sabotage U.N. climate talks which start next week, Britain's Energy and Climate Secretary said on Thursday.
"I do think that we have to beware of the climate saboteurs, the people who want to say the science is somehow in doubt, and want to cast aspersions on the whole process," Ed Miliband told reporters at a briefing.
"I'm not claiming there's a conspiracy, but there are interests that don't want to see an agreement in Copenhagen."
Nearly 200 countries and some 100 world leaders will meet in the Danish capital from December 7-18 to try to agree a new treaty to cut global greenhouse gas emissions. Its most important goal is to agree on a peak in global carbon emissions by 2020, Miliband said.
The minister said those that doubt man-made global warming, which scientists say is caused by mass deforestation and burning fossil fuels, are seeking "an easy way out".
"Sticking your head in the sand is not an answer," he said.
Sceptics have seized on the publication of a several hacked e-mails from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia as evidence that the case for global warming has been exaggerated.
Miliband referred not only to the emails, which this week led to the resignation of the research unit's head, but also to former Conservative finance minister Nigel Lawson, who published an article in The Times on November 23 casting doubt on the science and expressing pessimism about the Copenhagen talks.
"I think it is profoundly irresponsible for people who have held, in the case of Nigel Lawson, positions of high office, to be doing what they are doing," Miliband said.
"There is a very widespread consensus on the science. It is clear and settled ... not some fashionable consensus that has been dreamed up by elites."
Miliband also called recent speeches on the environment by the opposition Conservatives "rhetoric not backed by a substantive, worked-out policy".
Last Monday, the Conservatives promised to cut the emissions of government departments by 10 percent within a year if elected, saving some 300 million pounds a year.
================================
TELEGRAPH Leader 5.12.09
Copenhagen climate summit: A time for ingenuity and political leadership
Telegraph View: We must also remember this: Copenhagen is not the end of the process, but just the start.
Telegraph View
The road to Copenhagen has proved to be a rocky one. This past fortnight, ahead of the climate-change summit that starts in the Danish capital on Monday, the air has been thick with pejorative cries of "warmist" and "denier". The former are those who subscribe to the view that the increase in the Earth's temperature in recent decades is the fault of man's profligate use of the planet's fossil fuels; the latter may or may not dispute that the temperature is rising, or that it is in some way man's fault, but are certainly not convinced that dramatic remedial action is required. What should be a scientific debate has descended almost into a theological dispute.
But as Geoffrey Lean points out elsewhere in these pages, we have gone beyond this argument. This is not to say that sceptical views should be dismissed, or that new data which seem inconveniently to challenge the consensus should be ignored. One reason why the leaked emails obtained from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit caused such a row is that they appeared to suggest that the scientists were covering something up, or were manipulating the statistics. Sceptics such as Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, have valuable points to make about the economics of climate change and should be heard.
[At this point the writer goes into reverse and undoes all the somewhat more reasonable approach above -cs]
However, the governments of most countries in the world now accept the consensus. [They don’t feel qualified to argue and politicians are hadly disinterested parties -cs] And so, as many as 100 world leaders will gather in Copenhagen – not to argue about the reality of global warming, but to decide what to do about it. [I like that - they want decisions before the facts! -cs] Many of the proposals would be the right thing to do even without climate change: it is surely unconscionable, for example, for the current occupants of the Earth simply to continue extracting and exploiting a finite resource – such as fossil fuel – to the point of its depletion. [This is a weasel argument so that the lies and errors can be ignored to ram the policy through regardless -cs] Even those who consider the science ambiguous [‘ambiguous’ ? downright false, I would call it -cs] must acknowledge that there is a moral dimension here; our children and theirs are entitled to a future that has not been blighted by our mistakes. If the consequences of inaction are uncertain, yet possibly calamitous, then we should err on the side of caution. [And ruin our economies so that our descendants can live in man-made poverty ? -cs]
The response to the reality of climate change need not plunge the world into a pre-industrial dark age; yet to do nothing could have significant implications for mankind's future prosperity. It is possible to conceive of a greener future that is also a more benign one, thanks to investments in cleaner and cheaper technology and energy. First of all, however, it is important that Copenhagen produces an agreement. If the summit fails, it will be extremely difficult to reconvene such a gathering without losing the momentum now on display.
Essentially, the summit is a gathering of the wealthy polluters of the North and the poorer nations of the South, though countries such as India and China consider themselves in the latter category when they are perhaps moving towards the former. The two big issues are carbon cuts and money. The reductions in emissions to which most are prepared to commit remain at the lower end of what [the corrupt - -] scientists believe necessary to keep the rise in global temperatures this century to 2C. Even if agreement is reached to get emissions in 2020 to 20 per cent below the levels in 1990 (and some are offering [“offering” ? demanding for propaganda reasons -cs] much more than that), there is the further difficulty of implementing this on a national basis, especially in countries like America. Then there is the money. No deal is possible without a commitment by the North to pay the South up to $100 billion a year by 2030, to help poorer countries adapt to climate change and mitigate the effects of the slower economic growth that might arise. This a good deal of money, though less than has been spent bailing out the banks. Selling such a package to voters who do not see any immediate threat to their lives (and are already wary about misspent aid money) will require political skill and courage [deceit and lies -cs] , as well as enterprising policies that emphasise incentives as much as taxes. [ooh! AND bribes! -cs]
So, in Copenhagen, the leaders need to reach [chuck the false science out -cs] a politically binding agreement that contains the essential elements of a deal, even if a formal treaty is delayed for a further six months (the most likely outcome). This is a rare moment in history when political leadership of the highest order will be required. [You won’t get from Britain - maybe from Australia ? -cs] People want to see hard-headed pragmatism and are fed up being hectored or scared to death by visions of an apocalypse that they feel powerless to prevent. We all have a stake in this, and there are things we can all do, even down to the micro-level – indeed, measures such as improving insulation in our homes would be to our advantage with or without climate change.
This is also a time for human ingenuity. Digging coal and drilling for oil and gas is the easy bit; developing new, low-carbon technologies means unleashing precisely the innovative expertise and entrepreneurial spirit that climate-change sceptics believe are often derided by the more zealous and anti-capitalist elements of the green lobby. We need to hear less rhetoric about the end of the world, or wearisome countdowns of the number of days we have left to save the planet (which will survive even if we are not on it) and far more about the positive future that we can create for ourselves, both in trying to avert climate change and in dealing with it. So this summit must be more than just a pointless talking shop that leaves behind nothing save its own gigantic carbon footprint. [CO2 is a beneficial gas which increases crop yields without unnatural chemicals -cs] We must also remember this: Copenhagen is not the end of the process [it should be - but it won’t! -cs] , but just the start.
Posts
